Court Tells Users They Can't Use RECAP
from the public-domain-fail dept
We've discussed recently some questions about the federal court's PACER system, and noted that the courts seem to be profiting nicely from PACER, even as it's supposed to be about improving access to public domain court rulings, not about money for the court system. Yet, at the same time they're raising rates, and going beyond the mandate that created PACER by using the profits to fund other projects. Even worse, we noted that some courts seemed to be taking an antagonistic view towards efforts like RECAP, which was put together by Harlan Yu, Tim Lee and others at Princeton to help take public domain documents out of PACER and make them available to the public.It seems like we're hearing about more and more attempts by the courts to scare people away from RECAP. Lawyer Michael Barclay sent over the following text he saw when he logged into the PACER system for the District of Massachusetts federal court, which goes so far as to tell people who are accessing PACER on a "fee exempt" account that they're forbidden to use RECAP:
NOTICE FOR PACER FEE-EXEMPT USERSThat part where they say that fee exempt folks are barred from using RECAP had me scratching my head. Could the courts legally do this? According to the PACER FAQ:
The court would like to remind fee-exempt PACER users of the terms of the exemption and of potential issues associated with a new software application called RECAP. It was designed by a group from Princeton University to enable the sharing of court documents on the Internet. Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository. A fee exemption applies only for limited purposes. Any transfer of data obtained as the result of a fee exemption is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the court. Therefore, fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP. The prohibition on transfer of information received without fee is not intended to bar a quote or reference to information received as a result of a fee exemption in a scholarly or other similar work.
NOTICE FOR CM/ECF FILERS
The court would like to make CM/ECF filers aware of certain security concerns relating to a software application or .plug-in. called RECAP, which was designed by a group from Princeton University to enable the sharing of court documents on the Internet. Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository. RECAP captures District and Bankruptcy Court documents, but has not yet incorporated Appellate Court functionality. At this time, RECAP does not appear to provide users with access to restricted or sealed documents. Please be aware that RECAP is "open-source" software, which can be freely obtained by anyone with Internet access and modified for benign or malicious purposes, such as facilitating unauthorized access to restricted or sealed documents. Accordingly, CM/ECF filers are reminded to be diligent about their computer security practices to ensure that documents are not inadvertently shared or compromised. The court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will continue to analyze the implications of RECAP or related-software and advise you of any ongoing or further concerns.
A court may, for good cause, exempt persons or classes of persons from the electronic public access fees, in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to such information.Um. If it is supposed "to promote public access to such information," shouldn't they be encouraging the use of RECAP for fee exempt folks? In digging around, I also found the identical notice to what's on the D.Ma. site -- and while there's no date on it, on the listing of announcements it's a few below March of 2010 -- so this particular statement may actually be a few years old. Either way, it seems troubling that PACER is trying to restrict the use of RECAP and claiming that certain users are forbidden from using it. I don't see how they have the right to do that. Along those lines, after being pressed on the subject back in 2009, the court system stated that the federal court system is fine with RECAP, so I'm a bit confused (and troubled) by the conflicting messages.
Is the federal court system really trying to tell people they can stop them from redistributing public domain info?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: access restriction, pacer, public domain, recap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We shall stop the public from seeing free documents by allowing them free access to those documents as long as they then don't use those free documents to allow other members of the public from freely viewing them.
Makes perfect sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice FUD about open-source, too
What a pity that the idiots running PACER are simply too stupid or too stubborn to grasp this rudimentary point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what more could a megalomaniac want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/23352512068/as-feds-seize-domains-more-attent ion-paid-to-how-law-enforcement-regularly-abuses-asset-seizures.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
link
Basically, they have to deport 400,000 people at the behest of Congress. People that have had few problems with the law, disproportionately Latino, and have American children that have to deal with not being able to grow up with one of their parents.
Then, to add to this story, the detainment is one of the worst punitive damages I've seen. Maggot ridden food, private security force that is abusive, rape allegations that aren't reviewed, and ICE agents that bully the people that do complain.
Private police force for the rich indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want US citizens that have been here for 10+ years to grow up without a father or mother because of the thicket to becoming a US citizen is beyond bad.
You believe that every illegal alien has no right to any type of due process rights when they are detained, submitting that they have to be fingerprinted, searched and deported. If they complain about their problems, be it the fact that guards can rape them, they can be beaten while guards throw out racial slurs or ICE bullying them into silence for their treatment, it's their own fault because of some belief that entering the country illegally is robbing the US of jobs.
That is beyond an ignorant statement, and I would highly suggest you look into the website linked for a review of the Secure Communities program, the devastating effect of immediate deportation, and the consequences of the detainment program of ICE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (@lucidrenegade)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imposing sanctions
——Cox Broadcasting v Cohn (1975) (Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have only replaced the copymachine and have not understood that the new technology changes the core of how society is built. That isn't surprising at all really, it is exactly how large changes in technology has always been handled. The new things is seen and used as a small update of something similar that already exists and it takes quite a lot of time to realize that it can have much more impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quoting from BOCA v Code Technology (1st Cir., 1980)
(Pincites omitted.)
Regulating “the manner of publication so as to insure accuracy” is not the same as regulating publication to collect money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxing newspapers
. . . . The tax here involved is bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees. If that were all, a wholly different question would be presented. It is bad because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties. . . . .
The form in which the tax is imposed is, in itself, suspicious. It is not measured or limited by the volume of advertisements. It is measured alone by the extent of the circulation of the publication in which the advertisements are carried, with the plain purpose of penalizing the publishers and curtailing the circulation of a selected group of newspapers.
——Grosjean v. American Press (1936)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already have one down in Texas. It made the news a few years ago when their cops were caught pulling people over for no real reason and then 'confiscating' jewelry, etc, for 'evidence' and arresting anyone who dared to protest. They probably got away with it as long as they were because they were going after mostly foreign looking people who they thought were in the country illegally, hence would be too scared to report the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Hundreds of trips: who's paying?” by David Ingram, The National Law Journal, October 24, 2011
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
real security?
Does PACER give access to restricted or sealed documents? If so, then what kind of security does it have? (And does the word "sealed" mean anything once the lawyers are through with it?) If not, then RECAP cannot do so, and the quote above is quite disingenuous.
What kind of authentication comes with these documents? What prevents an unscrupulous lawyer (*cough*) from modifying a document before sending it to the RECAP archive?
Here's what I'd like to see: the PACER system digitally signs all the documents it hands out (public key on the PACER website). If it gives out restricted or sealed files, it first appends the identity of the recipient (rigorously verified), then signs (perhaps with a special key), then encrypts (with the recipient's public key). The RECAP system rejects any document without a valid court signature-- and if it fails to do so, users who get unsigned documents and trust them are fools who deserve what they get. It also rejects any document marked "RESTRICTED" or "SEALED"-- and if it fails to do so, the original recipient (whose name is still at the bottom, otherwise the signature wouldn't be valid) goes to jail.
This will never happen because lawyers don't like logic, don't trust technology, and don't want to make something impossible when they can make it illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: real security?
Court of Federal claims. Johnson vs US. All documents sealed from plaintiff. Why? It's a prose litigant that had to pay for PACER only to find the sealed information was sealed without notice to Appellant or with an order. So the info was sealed by PACER so that noone would see the error of the court and then charged the Appellate for accessing the info it could not read only to deny it without addressing the sealed information and never explained how or why it was sealed. The attorney defending the case of course could win this way and (cough, cough), take out the evidence - none of which lands in ANY legitimate federal reporter to the public.
It's a Ponzi scheme assisted by unindicted lawyer/clerk coconspirators!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that unexpected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course. An example: I own a copy of a book that's out of copyright and in the public domain. I scan the book and offer it for sale on the internet for 10 cents per page. Once you pay me 10 cents for a page, it's yours and you can do with it as you please since there's no copyright. Now, I could decide that rather than charge 10 cents per page, for certain people with low incomes I'll give it to them for free. As a condition though, they must promise to not be using Firefox. I'll only give it away for free if they're using Internet Explorer. Can I do this? Of course. It's not a copyright issue. My copy is my copy, and I have property rights over it. I can sell or give it away for free, with or without conditions. This is a contract issue, not a copyright issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's an illusory contract.
From the PACER “Policies and Procedures”:
A so-called “contract” where one party reserves the right to change all of the terms at whim is not a contract. It's the pretense of “contract”: just an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about we give you tar and feathers?
Sorry. I myself am going to take a break from this discussion for a little bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But PACER is owned and operated by the government. It's also subject to Congressional Law, including Public Law 102-140 (as amended):
The key is the last sentence -- does creating a class of users who can't use RECAP "avoid unreasonable burdens" or "promote public access"? PACER would probably argue that if it fee-exempt users could upload court docs to RECAP, then no one would have an incentive to pay for PACER access. And if no one pays, then maintaining PACER would become an "unreasonable burden." Or they'd have to shut down fee-exempt access, ultimately harming "public access".
I think that's baloney. PACER fees are clearly unreasonable. I forget the link, but lawyers have shown that PACER fees are such that it's operating with substantial profit. While we encourage private companies to seek profit, the government shouldn't restrict how people use information for the sole purpose of maintaining a profitable monopoly.
Moreover, if PACER fees were solely to maintain public access, there's a much better "business model" for the government here. Just charge every lawyer a fixed fee. This ensures PACER has a relatively stable source of revenue that doesn't fluctuate with the vagaries of technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But PACER is owned and operated by the government.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are government owned websites not allowed to have enforceable terms of use? I can't fathom why that would be so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Congress authorizes funding for government websites, it can attach restrictions to the funding. In this case, Congress authorized appropriations for PACER on the condition that PACER only collect fees to cover costs, not make a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if that's true, it doesn't necessarily make the terms of use (including the "no RECAP" rule for fee exempt users) unenforceable. Considering that fee exempt users aren't paying fees, I don't see what fees collected from other users has to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under the statute, the only authorized purpose for charging different rates to different "classes of persons" is "to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access." The purpose for the "no RECAP" rule is arguably inconsistent with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore if a contract has no consideration (and the usage by persons for free when others pay means there is no consideration for the free users) also then that contract is deemed illusory and no contract has been formed.
And all that is before we get into estoppel and unconscionable conduct.
Though It would be highly amusing for PACER (and its owner) to take a user to task for forfeiture though.
Me I just think this is standard psychological puffery towards those silly enough to pay any attention to this EULA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government may not deny use of its website “to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests— especially, his interest in freedom of speech. ”
Perry et al v Sindermann (1972)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine if a court document was only available in hard-copy, and when you went to pick it up, you were forced to sign a contract saying you can't republish the document online.
The net effect would be that the document was not available online, even though I have a First Amendment right to publish online. That seems wrong on a gut level, and an example of the government "produc[ing] a result which [it] could not command directly" under Speiser v. Randall.
As it is though, you could easily pay for the right to republish on RECAP. Not sure how this affects 1st Amendment analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a comment above, I provided (without additional comment) a link to Grosjean. There, the tax at issue singled out publications with “circulation of more than 20,000 copies per week”.
Along that same line, there's Minneapolis Star & Tribune v Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983):
(Citations omitted).
It's basic, though, that the freedom of the press is not limited to the institutional newspapers. Rather, it is “traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The courts should just go pound sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another PACER Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another PACER Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another PACER Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]